Study Finds No Gender Gap in Tech Salaries • Hacker News Board

Re: Study Finds No Gender Gap in Tech Salaries

#511

Post by CWuestefeld » Fri, Mar 04, 2016, 3:14 PM UTC

Kluny wrote: post #324

CWuestefeld wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Society is helped by having healthy babies, yes. You haven't provided any support for your argument that I , as someone without children, must be made to subsidize the family choices of others. The resources to cover the extended work absence of the parents has to come from somewhere. In many cases, it'll be one past parent covering a new parent, and then vice-versa. But those of us who can't have children (a) don't…

I'd say that you came up in the public school system, were raised by a mother who dropped out of the workforce and stopped her other contributions to society in order to raise you, received all the cheap or free healthcare that is available to minors, and took advantage of all the opportunities that society provides to young people in order to help them be successful and functional parts of their community. So you've…

Doesn't that argument boil down to "we've done it that way in the past, so it must be continued in the future"?

Re: Study Finds No Gender Gap in Tech Salaries

#512

Post by leereeves » Fri, Mar 04, 2016, 3:15 PM UTC

belorn wrote: post #507

leereeves wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This could be a long debate. To simplify, do you know of any scientific or medical sources that say "hormones (within natural occurring levels) have very minimal effect on emotion" as you claimed earlier?

lets me quote a few different text. The key word that I used was regulative effect. "Normal estrogen levels vary widely. Large differences are typical in a woman on different days, or between two women on the same day of their cycles. The actual measured level of estrogen doesn't predict emotional disturbances.". (webmd article. not a authoritative but useful as a general summery) "However, estrogen is not simply a n…

Administered hormones are not equivalent to natural hormones (which is a significant problem with HRT).

And those quotes are not quite "hormones (within natural occurring levels) have very minimal effect on emotion".

"the impact of estrogen on emotion varies"

And another quote from the study you quoted (Effects of testosterone on mood, aggression, and sexual behavior in young men: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study):

"Increased circulating T was associated with significant increases in anger-hostility from baseline (mean score = 7.48) to wk 2 (mean score = 10.71)"

7.48 to 10.71 doesn't seem like a very minimal change.

----

Since you quoted WebMD (perhaps a useful summary) I will as well:

"It's clear that estrogen is closely linked with women's emotional well-being. Depression and anxiety affect women in their estrogen-producing years more often than men or postmenopausal women. Estrogen is also linked to mood disruptions that occur only in women -- premenstrual syndrome, premenstrual dysphoric disorder, and postpartum depression."

And from another article:

"Declining estrogen levels associated with menopause can cause more than those pesky hot flashes. They can also make a woman feel like she is in a constant state of PMS (premenstrual syndrome). Unfortunately, these emotional changes are a normal part of menopause."

"Some of the emotional changes experienced by women undergoing perimenopause or menopause can include: Irritability, Feelings of sadness, Lack of motivation, Anxiety, Aggressiveness, Difficulty concentrating, Fatigue, Mood changes, and Tension."

----

Perhaps we can agree.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by regulative, but I agree that emotions are complicated and hormones are not the only influence, nor is the relationship a simple cause and effect.

On the other hand, there's significant evidence that hormones do effect emotion, including perhaps the most striking example which I somehow forgot earlier: puberty. And their prenatal effect on the structure of the brain.

Would you agree hormones do effect emotions, but aren't the only factor, and the relationship is complicated, unpredictable, and varies between individuals?

Re: Study Finds No Gender Gap in Tech Salaries

#513

Post by AnthonyMouse » Fri, Mar 04, 2016, 3:22 PM UTC

8note wrote: post #447

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Strength/size is a physical trait, not a gender role. Hormone release is a physical process, not a gender role. Where do you think gender roles come from? The most common job in the US is truck driver. It's not software developer money but it pays better than you might expect. Truck drivers are overwhelming male and you might not see an obvious reason for that and want to blame "gender roles" or sexism. But truck d…

if you need to lift that much weight, you'll be using a crane, in which case your strength is a moot point. Assuming strength does matter for loading/unloading, the real culprit is how truckers are paid, not the strength of the driver.

> if you need to lift that much weight, you'll be using a crane, in which case your strength is a moot point.

You don't typically lift all 20,000 pounds at the same time. The typical case is that you have twenty or so pallets with a thousand pounds on each of them and you use a pallet jack, which goes under the pallet and has wheels. That's how one person can move 20,000 pounds of freight at all. But you still have to overcome inertia and rolling resistance against 1000 pounds and have enough left in you to do it 19 more times. And do it fast enough that your truck leaves on schedule or makes it out soon enough to beat rush hour.

> Assuming strength does matter for loading/unloading, the real culprit is how truckers are paid, not the strength of the driver.

It isn't how they're paid. It's the fact that when a truck driver gets to a loading dock they're inherently standing around unable to go anywhere else until the freight is loaded or unloaded, so the efficient thing is to have them move the freight (whether you pay them separately for it or not).

Re: Study Finds No Gender Gap in Tech Salaries

#514

Post by logfromblammo » Fri, Mar 04, 2016, 3:48 PM UTC

Kluny wrote: post #315

logfromblammo wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are in the woods. Before you are two black bear cubs. Due to the circumstances of the hypothetical, you have only two choices for where to stand. Choice A is between the cubs and their mother, who is feasting on armyworms. Choice B is between the cubs and their father, who is raiding a beehive. Which do you pick? Choice B, right? It is illogical to walk away from easy food and then choose to attack the strong foo…

I don't think your analogy holds any water, and I also find it disrespectful of the typical father's love for his children.

My point was that the emotionality of females and males is strongly biological, has likely existed since the common ancestor of all mammals, and the notion that it is significantly impacted by human social constructs is not tremendously plausible in my opinion.

A developing fetus literally injects behavior-changing chemicals directly into its mother's bloodstream for months before it is born. In species without strong pair-bonding, a juvenile may never get the chance to push any evolution-programmed buttons on the father to initiate a parental bond.

So my opinion is that the median human male probably does not experience emotion as strongly as the median human female, because male emotions do not affect reproductive success as strongly or as reliably as female emotions. There's no particular reason to attach any cultural importance to it. Being more or less emotional than someone else is neither good nor bad. But it does affect behavior, and therefore relative suitability for specific work roles.

Evolution does not care if you literally cry over spilled milk, or if you can continue running up the beach even after the hundred men in front of you, to whom you had grown attached in the weeks prior, get torn to shreds before your eyes. It only cares about whether you will have living descendants in the future. But your fellow humans care about that when they are deciding whether or not to hire you into a vacant position. Your emotional programming will make you more suitable for some jobs, and less suitable for others.

But that is definitely not the sole reason why some professions have something other than a 50-50 split between the sexes. It accounts for some of the difference, but nowhere near all of it.

Re: Study Finds No Gender Gap in Tech Salaries

#515

Post by leereeves » Fri, Mar 04, 2016, 3:50 PM UTC

belorn wrote: post #510

norea-armozel wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, chromosomes are a worse target for predicting behaviors in terms of sex-linked traits since genes during conception can and will be exchanged between the X and Y chromosomes in humans. This is why sometimes the SRY gene is found in women (XX) despite clearly having an operative uterus and ovaries. Nature loves to pick on us humans when it comes to assuming fixed traits.

I picked chromosomes and genes mostly because they are at least involved in the creation of the human brain, which was a bit hastily written. I agree that it makes for a poor prediction to determine who is going to have a tendency for mood swings. Gender, to the degree that gender is not about culture, is quite far down the list of predictors, and even further down on the list would be hormones.

The literature I've read says hormones are "involved in the creation of the brain".

"Steroid hormones are a dominant and pervasive source of sex differences by mediating developmental processes that are enduring and establish adult physiological and behavioural responses relevant to the reproductive constraints of each sex."

From Multifaceted origins of sex differences in the brain, 1 February 2016, an open access article.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1688/2015...

Re: Study Finds No Gender Gap in Tech Salaries

#516

Post by facepalm » Fri, Mar 04, 2016, 3:53 PM UTC

estefan wrote: post #508

facepalm wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean? According to urban dictionary, ftyf means "fixed that for you"? How does your statement contradict mine?

Because that's what everyone wants, kids or not.

Sure, but there is a reason mothers get it and fathers don't. My post was in reply to the assumption that everybody wants to work instead of staying at home with the kids.

I know just by staying at home you are not free of all worries. But for the time being, your responsibility is not worrying about earning a livelihood.

Re: Study Finds No Gender Gap in Tech Salaries

#517

Post by belorn » Fri, Mar 04, 2016, 4:09 PM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #512

belorn wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lets me quote a few different text. The key word that I used was regulative effect. "Normal estrogen levels vary widely. Large differences are typical in a woman on different days, or between two women on the same day of their cycles. The actual measured level of estrogen doesn't predict emotional disturbances.". (webmd article. not a authoritative but useful as a general summery) "However, estrogen is not simply a n…

Administered hormones are not equivalent to natural hormones (which is a significant problem with HRT). And those quotes are not quite "hormones (within natural occurring levels) have very minimal effect on emotion". "the impact of estrogen on emotion varies" And another quote from the study you quoted (Effects of testosterone on mood, aggression, and sexual behavior in young men: a double-blind, placebo-controlled,…

I would use the wording of the article, in that hormone is closely linked and associated with certain behavior. There is very little studies (but feel free to provide them) that shows that artificial reduced estrogen will cause a person to get emotional upset.

By regulative I mean that in order to see a major effect, you already need to have a major state. A person with no aggression is not going to get aggressive based on testosterone. A person that is already aggressive will have that aggression regulated if one artificially increasing the circulating testosterone, most often by exaggerating the aggression in a context aware way. For example, a person who has a tendency for road rage won't be more likely to shoot someone, but they might honk the horn more or yell more loudly. Regulative effects don't cause things to happen, but rather modulate what already exist.

Puberty and pregnancy has an other thing in common, in that it both cause changes in the persons neurons. Its speculated the reason that a womans body during pregnancy do this is in order to make it easier form memories and bond with the newborn baby. Its been suggested that some typical pregnancy behaviors is thus a result of those changes to the neurons. I would strongly suspect that hormone levels have a regulative role in facilitating the rate of the changes, but I doubt if measuring the hormone level would be a predictor for how much of a change actually happened.

To bring out an analogy, taxes has an regulative effect on wealth, but its a not a predictor for it. If I selected random individuals over the world and only looked at where they live and how much percent that they pay in taxes, it will tell me nothing about who is rich and who is poor. I have a better time looking at living expensive and food prices, but even that is a poor method to predict how much wealth someone has. I would thus not describe taxes as having a significant effect on wealth, and that wealth per adult is the result of a complex system.

Re: Study Finds No Gender Gap in Tech Salaries

#518

Post by norea-armozel » Fri, Mar 04, 2016, 4:16 PM UTC

FD3SA wrote: post #506

norea-armozel wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, chromosomes are a worse target for predicting behaviors in terms of sex-linked traits since genes during conception can and will be exchanged between the X and Y chromosomes in humans. This is why sometimes the SRY gene is found in women (XX) despite clearly having an operative uterus and ovaries. Nature loves to pick on us humans when it comes to assuming fixed traits.

How interesting. So using a statistically significant population sample, there will be no phenotypic differences between carriers of X versus Y chromosomes? If so, science has progressed quite far in the last few years that I've been away.

There won't be much difference beyond reproductive roles and other physical traits, but the brain doesn't seem to be affected all that much, no.

Basically, there's no gene for being a programmer just as there's no gene for being a (good/bad) parent. Why would Nature bother to pre-compute/compile all possible states/outcomes? Better to compute/compile the essentials for a living species then let the rest be handled by history.

Re: Study Finds No Gender Gap in Tech Salaries

#519

Post by steve-howard » Fri, Mar 04, 2016, 4:19 PM UTC

bcook wrote: post #476

steve-howard wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could perhaps say that men and women both experience strong emotions but that both the emotions and the way they've been socialized to express them are quite different.

Fair enough, but your posit breaks no ground... Nothing learned.

Especially if you don't want to.

Re: Study Finds No Gender Gap in Tech Salaries

#520

Post by norea-armozel » Fri, Mar 04, 2016, 4:25 PM UTC

belorn wrote: post #510

norea-armozel wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, chromosomes are a worse target for predicting behaviors in terms of sex-linked traits since genes during conception can and will be exchanged between the X and Y chromosomes in humans. This is why sometimes the SRY gene is found in women (XX) despite clearly having an operative uterus and ovaries. Nature loves to pick on us humans when it comes to assuming fixed traits.

I picked chromosomes and genes mostly because they are at least involved in the creation of the human brain, which was a bit hastily written. I agree that it makes for a poor prediction to determine who is going to have a tendency for mood swings. Gender, to the degree that gender is not about culture, is quite far down the list of predictors, and even further down on the list would be hormones.

I've been reading up on an embryologist that has been digging into the question of what defines sex in humans. She's concluding sex can be as varied as eye color and the like. So, sex isn't much a static category but rather a clustering of characteristics. It's something that may seem counter intuitive, but Nature doesn't have to obey our intentions.